rejections from reviewer

[+invisibleman53]

I have had a few cache placements rejected by a reviewer stating that I had to have a land owner or property owner's permission to put a cache there. Examples are, guard rails, does it belong to the property owner or the highway maintenance(county, state). OK, I have already FOUND IT caches on other guard rails around town, so how did they get OK'ed. the owners actually contacted the highway department? Another is, our town park. I went to the manager who never heard of geocaching and said no one has come to her to get permission to place cache on city park properties, but if you look on the map, there are several in all the different parks around town...so they lied, said they got permission? I recently was refused a guard rail position out of town near the city's water supply reservoir, on county road, reviewer saying I have to find out who is responsible for the rail, county or county park department, then I can place....but I have found it, on guard rails all across Ohio. Has anyone else had problems on getting placement approval?

[Keystone]

36 minutes ago, invisibleman53 said:

I have had a few cache placements rejected by a reviewer stating that I had to have a land owner or property owner's permission to put a cache there. Examples are, guard rails, does it belong to the property owner or the highway maintenance(county, state). OK, I have already FOUND IT caches on other guard rails around town, so how did they get OK'ed.

 

As explained in your reviewer's note to you, it is not the fact that your cache is hidden on a guardrail, but rather that the guardrail is alongside a road that passes through land for which permission is required to hide a geocache.  You should follow the land manager policy.

 

If you found other caches on guardrails, perhaps they were in parking lots or along roads where the land manager has not notified Geocaching.com of a geocaching permit policy that needs to be followed.

[+cerberus1]

35 minutes ago, invisibleman53 said:

I have had a few cache placements rejected by a reviewer stating that I had to have a land owner or property owner's permission to put a cache there. 

- snip -

 Has anyone else had problems on getting placement approval?

 

We've had folks turn us down, but we've asked for permission on every cache placed. 

 - Some taking months of meetings with property owners. 

You gave a few examples of others (maybe) not asking for permission... 

We know a few who asked a township supervisor for permission, to find that the township now had a parks director who wasn't told about placement.

It's important to know who  is the one to ask.   

Sure some may have fibbed their way on a cache placement.  Caught lying to a Reviewer doesn't help them later.   

Reviewers want to get caches placed, they're cachers too.  Sounds that your Reviewer was being helpful.  

[+Touchstone]

Probably best to educate yourself on local land use issues.  Link for reference:

 

https://wiki.Groundspeak.com/display/GEO/Ohio

 

1 hour ago, invisibleman53 said:

...so they lied, said they got permission?

 

That usually doesn't end so well for most people.

[+MNTA]

The hiding a new cache is more challenge than it is worth. Find a great spot only to find that there is a hidden location nearby. That happened multiple times. Then there is the permission thing. Forget it if I have to ask not going to do it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for no putting a cache on private property specially behind a no trespassing sign. I think the pendulum has swung too far. The whole hiding a cache experience has turned me off and I suspect I am not alone. 

[+Harry Dolphin]

I deal with what the reviewer tells me.  I thought is was watershed, but he said it was WMA.  Oh, well.  My bad.

Strange little park.  "Friends of the River" sign.  Funded by an automobile company.  Benches.  Picnic table.  But the town does not have it listed as a park.  And the maps show it on land owned by a railroad.  Train only comes through once a week.  Though the town garbage removal company does pick up the garbage.  Oh, well.  Live with what the reviewer tells you.  He/she knows better than I.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

The hiding a new cache is more challenge than it is worth. Find a great spot only to find that there is a hidden location nearby. That happened multiple times. Then there is the permission thing. Forget it if I have to ask not going to do it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for no putting a cache on private property specially behind a no trespassing sign. I think the pendulum has swung too far. The whole hiding a cache experience has turned me off and I suspect I am not alone. 

 

Sometimes, maybe often, hiding a cache takes some effort and perseverance. My most recent one (GC831AR) began in early January when I was exploring some of the fire trails in Brisbane Water National Park. My initial spot, offering beautiful views south over Broken Bay, turned out to be an Aboriginal site, making it off limits to caches, so I explored a bit further afield, eventually finding an interesting place overlooking the Patonga Creek estuary. The first step was a check with the Aboriginal heritage register, which came back all clear, so I then put my proposal to the park ranger. The parks office here is a part-time operation so nothing ever happens quickly, and it was another week before I received a reply saying it looked okay and I should lodge a formal application, which I did on the first of February. Last Tuesday I received their approval and was then able to place the cache and submit it for review. It was published on Thursday and has had one find so far, but someone has put it on their watchlist so maybe it'll get another.

 

That one went relatively quickly and smoothly. The first time I lodged an application with National Parks, the ranger I spoke to said it looked fine so I lodged my application, but two months later they advised me that it couldn't proceed due to a nearby Aboriginal site (that's when they gave me the link to the register website so I could check it myself). Another one was rejected because, even though there were no Aboriginal sites near GZ, the walking track out there passed over some protected engravings. With that one, I had a fallback location they were happy with but it still took another two months to get through the bureaucacy and then our normal reviewer was on leave and it took another eleven days to get through the publication queue. From when I first created the cache page to when it got published, that one (GC752YF) took almost four months.

 

The craziest one was what was going to be the sixth cache in my Chasing Waterfalls series. The waterfalls of interest were in a section of Brisbane Water National Park, but as I was sussing out the area and taking photos for my virtual waypoints, a woman drove down the service road and claimed I was tresspassing on her property, pointing to a home-made Private Property Keep Out sign nailed to a nearby tree. It turned out her property was a further 3.5km along that road and the park ranger assured me I had every right to be there and they'd have a quiet word with her, but two months later the sign was still there. Before lodging the cache for publication, I sent an email to my reviewer explaining the situation, and he said he'd publish it if I submitted it but if the woman complained, HQ would likely archive it on the spot. In the end I was concerned enough about that woman confronting people doing the cache that I didn't proceed.

 

Like it or not, caching is very much a fringe activity and we have to abide by whatever restrictions the greater community imposes. I think we're lucky we can get caches approved at all in the national parks here, as from 2002 to 2010 they were completely banned and it took several years of patient negotiation by the local caching association to get that ban partially overturned. At the end of the day, if it's someone else's land or property, it's their right to say what is or isn't allowed on it, and the reviewers are often best-placed to know about such restrictions and who to talk to, if possible, to get permission.

Edited March 4, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+CAVinoGal]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

The hiding a new cache is more challenge than it is worth.

Yes, it can be challenging, at times, and is definitely more work than simply finding caches.  I enjoy creating hides, even with the challenges.  I've solved puzzles in order to find out where the final locations are; I've worked with land/property/business owners to get permission, and it usually turns out well.  Not always, and in those cases I just move on.

 

We have one (gadget) cache we've been looking for a place to hide for ... a long time ...  we thought we had it, then the business owner renenged. Had another spot, but meetings kept "not happening".  Met with the third landowner, but she kept giving us excuses.  The gadget is still in our garage, waiting for the right place to reveal itself.

 

Then there's one we hid, and it was published 3 minutes after submission!  THREE MINUTES!  Experience can vary - we now look to see what puzzles are in a two mile radius and could interfere with our placement, and if we can place them in public access places or where no permission is needed, that step is eliminated.

 

Being a CO, and hiding caches, is not for everyone.  It can be a very enjoyable side to the hobby, but it is also challenging and can be difficult to do it right.

[+hzoi]

14 hours ago, MNTA said:

The hiding a new cache is more challenge than it is worth. Find a great spot only to find that there is a hidden location nearby. That happened multiple times. Then there is the permission thing. Forget it if I have to ask not going to do it. Don't get me wrong, I am all for no putting a cache on private property specially behind a no trespassing sign. I think the pendulum has swung too far. The whole hiding a cache experience has turned me off and I suspect I am not alone. 

 

It sounds like your main points of friction may be the 528'/161m rule and not knowing where the mystery caches are around you, more so than landowner permission, if you won't bother asking for permission in the first place.

 

I've run into landowner permission and proximity issues multiple times.  I haven't let that stop us from successfully hiding caches.  I work in a bureaucracy, so maybe I just have a higher tolerance for working through process.

[+igator210]

Permission has always been needed to hide a cache, whether it is formal or implied.

 

The rules for hiding a cache can be... complicated. A mall that is owned by Company A might be cache friendly and has implied permission to hide caches on its property but a strip mall owned by Company B wants to limit liability to so you have to get formal permission. Company C might have had a bad experience and has banned all caches. Also, how an entity feels might change over time. Recently the primary electric company in my area has banned all caches on utility poles, even though for years they were allowed. It happens.

 

This can also be applied to park. A park might be cache friendly now, but if there is damage, they might want to temporally ban caches. If a park director changes, they might have a different opinion of the last director.

There is no precedent on where caches can be hidden.

Edited March 4, 2019 by igator210

[+The A-Team]

On ‎3‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 3:31 PM, MNTA said:

I think the pendulum has swung too far.

This implies that at one time, the pendulum swung in the opposite direction (ie. no requirement for permission), but that really hasn't been the case since the very earliest days of geocaching. (...and certainly not since you started in 2013)

 

Let's hop in the Wayback Machine and head back to the year 2000...

Quote

Will it be on private or public land? - If you place it on private land, please ask permission before putting it there! You're ultimately responsible for the cache, so be responsible.

 

As we can see, getting permission was at least suggested as far back as November 2000.

 

In addition, the "adequate permission" clause has been in place since at least November 2003:

Quote

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.

 

Really, this part of the guidelines hasn't changed much since the early days. What has changed is that land managers have learned about geocaching and implemented policies to either allow or ban geocaching. These policies can make things more challenging, but they can also make things easier if the manager has a policy that allows you to hide on their land without having to get explicit permission from them.

[+Korichnovui]

Remember that reviewers are very experienced geocachers. They know what they are talking about! Pay close attention to what they write to you. It is you that needs to elevate your understanding of the situation, not them. I have been in the same boat in the past. When I was newer, I tried to hide some caches that weren't really up to snuff. The reviewers rejected me. It would have been easy to get miffed and offended, but instead I humbled myself and took to heart what they had to say.

 

I recently spent over a month trying to get permission to hide a cache on top of a hill on a hiking trail. There were some twists and turns along the way but I finally tracked down the correct person to give the permission, and got the permission! Now I literally can't get to the spot because of too much snow! I'm waiting patiently....

[+hzoi]

8 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Remember that reviewers are very experienced geocachers.

 

Well, except the ones that are dogs:

 

 

But even those are pretty good.

[+JL_HSTRE]

It can certainly be frustrating because of how inconsistent permission and restrictions are.

 

Some land managers specifically require ammo cans. Others specifically require clear containers. 

 

Most county/city parks and preserves / natural areas do not require permission, but a few do.

 

Here in FL, state parks consistently need permission. There are also state forests and state land lead managed by the water management districts or wildlife commission (FWC), each of whom has a different permission form. FWC last I checked requires a permit number written on the container exterior so a CO must visit the location twice - once to get coords and again to place the properly labelled container.

 

Caches are generally prohibited in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges, but allowed without permission in National Forests.

 

Rest area caches have been banned in FL at certain rest areas at the request of the security there. In VA they are banned statewide. A few states also ban GRIMs.

 

I tried to place an Earthcache in a National Forest on a free public trail (not in FL). I was still required to contact the land manager, whom I found difficult to get contact for as the forest lacked a public visitor center. I contacted them through their website and weeks later heard back that I needed to contact a different adjacent National Forest, for which they only provided a phone number. At this point I just gave up on it. For permission I want a form to fill out or an email contact so I have approval in writing. I don't want to play phone tag.

 

Meanwhile, I could go to the vast majority of parking lots and place a LPC without permission.

 

So I agree permission for geocache placement is a headache, although mostly not Groundspeak's fault. If anything I think too often urban caches that should get permission aren't required to. The real issue is a lack of consistency among land managers over who wants permission, how you get that permission, and what restrictions they have. That's pretty much out if Groundspeak's hands.

Edited March 6, 2019 by JL_HSTRE
Clarity

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

For permission I want a form to fill out or an email contact so I have approval in writing. I don't want to play phone tag.

 

I find an initial phone call actually helps.  I can explain my concept, make an initial pitch, and then promise them a follow-up email.  It's easy to ignore an unsolicited email, but once you've spoken with someone on the phone, it seems they are more likely to follow up on an email.  Normally I'll use the phone call to get a "soft" commitment on the general concept to make sure I'm not wasting everyone's time.

 

When I follow up via email, I use my standard email pitch, along with a PDF of the draft earthcache page if I have one ready. 

 

I've enjoyed a pretty good success rate with this approach.  But then I am used to dealing with government bureaucrats, as it's my job to do so.  When you know how they think, it's easier to get them to yes.  

[+thebruce0]

Get them to the yes!

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

I find an initial phone call actually helps.  I can explain my concept, make an initial pitch, and then promise them a follow-up email.  It's easy to ignore an unsolicited email, but once you've spoken with someone on the phone, it seems they are more likely to follow up on an email.  Normally I'll use the phone call to get a "soft" commitment on the general concept to make sure I'm not wasting everyone's time.

 

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to.

Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered".

We ask for permission directly.    

Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag.

 - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them. 

[+hzoi]

50 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

I find an initial phone call actually helps.  I can explain my concept, make an initial pitch, and then promise them a follow-up email.  It's easy to ignore an unsolicited email, but once you've spoken with someone on the phone, it seems they are more likely to follow up on an email.  Normally I'll use the phone call to get a "soft" commitment on the general concept to make sure I'm not wasting everyone's time.

 

We never had much luck with calls, other than finding out who we needed to talk to.

Most times (we believe) the person was there, but didn't want to be "bothered".

We ask for permission directly.    

Tougher to "push it away" when you're right there in front of them, prepared with various containers and lots of info in a bag.

 - If they are the person who grants permission, (we found) most are comfortable with our plan after presenting it directly to them. 

 

Well, sure - in person is always better than phone, if you can swing it.  But if you can't, phone beats email.

[+RDrayerIII]

I have sought permission for my geocaches, but I have had doubts about some of the geocaches that I have encountered. The highways are saturated with guardrail caches. Usually the same person is behind those. Did they register every single one with the highway administration? Also popular trails are saturated with caches (traditionals and WhereIGos) usually by the same person. It is hard to imagine that the land manager agreeded to 50 geocaches on one trail. And then the parking lot caches and caches in the woods behind stores makes me wonder.

Edited March 7, 2019 by rdrayeriii

[+Team Bear-Cat]

Reviewers have an un-enviable quality control mission that we might not appreciate until we encounter a situation where it doesn't exist.

 

I briefly dabbled with (competing_online game_name omitted ... and it doesn't really matter which one ...), which was supposed to be "policed by the community" until I quite-literally observed that multiple targets had been placed on "not only each, but every light-pole in a nearby Home Depot parking lot."  (On a "map display," I literally could not see the geography.)  I gave-up on the game and haven't looked at it since.  (To the owners of that game, "you just lost a customer.")

 

So, these volunteers(!) really do perform a quality-control function that we can too-easily take for granted in our game.  As you propose new caches, work with them to give cachers the very best possible experience that both of you, together, can manage.  ("After all, we're all in the Entertainment business now ...")

Edited March 8, 2019 by Team Bear-Cat

[+cerberus1]

2 minutes ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

Reviewers have an un-enviable quality control mission that we might not appreciate until we encounter a situation where it doesn't exist.

 - snip -

So, these volunteers(!) really do perform a quality-control function that we can too-easily take for granted in our game.  As you propose new caches, work with them.

 

Reviewers don't "approve" caches, they simply publish them if they meet guidelines.  

If they had to publish them on "quality", I'd bet there'd be one heck-of-a-lot that would be in limbo for some time. 

[+arisoft]

29 minutes ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

So, these volunteers(!) really do perform a quality-control function that we can too-easily take for granted in our game.

 

Some reviewers I have met, told me that they are not allowed to perform total quality control. For example, all grammatical errors in cache descriptions will stay.

 

Of course, the idea of reviewing contains a promise of quality, but mostly the process is about saturation issues and permissions. Issues, that are mostly objective, not subjective as the quality is.

Edited March 8, 2019 by arisoft

[+NYPaddleCacher]

32 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Some reviewers I have met, told me that they are not allowed to perform total quality control. For example, all grammatical errors in cache descriptions will stay.

 

Of course, the idea of reviewing contains a promise of quality, but mostly the process is about saturation issues and permissions. Issues, that are mostly objective, not subjective as the quality is.

 

I would assume that a reviewer could point out grammatical or spelling errors but could not deny a cache from being published if they were not corrected.

 

There is also the guideline related to commercial references or promoting an agenda, and the guideline indicates if there is a "perception" that the cache is commercial in nature or promoting an agenda so there's some subjectivity there.   For me,  I like seeing caches commercial free and my experience would be degraded if caches promoted an agenda were published so in a way, reviewers are helping with quality.  They can't however, base their decision on whether or not a cache is published based on some subjective view on whether the cache is "good" or would be popular by finders.  

[+The A-Team]

I agree with the last few posters in saying that reviewers do not do quality control. In fact, attempts to perform quality control were exactly the reason why Virtuals went away the first time. After the Virtuals being submitted started to become increasingly "lame", the "WOW factor" was introduced and the reviewers had to decide which Virtuals were good enough to warrant being published. After a short time of telling cachers their baby was too ugly, the reviewers collectively said they didn't want to do that anymore and the Virtual type was retired.

 

You can submit the lamest possible cache in the world, but as long as it meets the guidelines, then a reviewer will still publish it. It's their job to make sure all listings meet the requirements to be listed on this site, not to pass judgement on whether any given cache is "good enough" to be published.

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, Team Bear-Cat said:

I briefly dabbled with (competing_online game_name omitted ... and it doesn't really matter which one ...), which was supposed to be "policed by the community" until I quite-literally observed that multiple targets had been placed on "not only each, but every light-pole in a nearby Home Depot parking lot."  (On a "map display," I literally could not see the geography.)  I gave-up on the game and haven't looked at it since.  (To the owners of that game, "you just lost a customer.")

I tried that game briefly in the early days, but never did much. When I later saw it evolving to produce long powertrail-like strings of virtual targets, I knew it had jumped the shark and was devolving into ridiculousness. Your example above further reinforces that.

[+barefootjeff]

On 3/8/2019 at 3:54 AM, rdrayeriii said:

I have sought permission for my geocaches, but I have had doubts about some of the geocaches that I have encountered. The highways are saturated with guardrail caches. Usually the same person is behind those. Did they register every single one with the highway administration? Also popular trails are saturated with caches (traditionals and WhereIGos) usually by the same person. It is hard to imagine that the land manager agreeded to 50 geocaches on one trail. And then the parking lot caches and caches in the woods behind stores makes me wonder.

 

The question of permissions is very much dependent on the locale. On public land where there are no explicit restrictions on cache placement, there might (and I stress might) be no need to seek formal permission and, particularly in the case of government bureaucracies, it might be better not to as there's a tendency for front desk staff to just say no to anything not covered in their training manual, i.e. let sleeping dogs lie. If in doubt, ask your reviewer or your local geocaching association as they will be well-versed on permission requirements in your area.

[+Lynx Humble]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Reviewers don't "approve" caches, they simply publish them if they meet guidelines.  

If they had to publish them on "quality", I'd bet there'd be one heck-of-a-lot that would be in limbo for some time. 

Well GS released two surveys on quality so I guess there are an issue on the subject. But we are still waiting for results about those surveys...

 

Reviewers seems to ask different questions depending on your area because I never got asked a proof of permission about the caches I placed.

 

26 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

I tried that game briefly in the early days, but never did much. When I later saw it evolving to produce long powertrail-like strings of virtual targets, I knew it had jumped the shark and was devolving into ridiculousness. Your example above further reinforces that.

Yeah I confirm that other game is now ridiculous you get so many points just driving around being passenger in a car. They also put the saturation so low that in some area I walk too fast to get them all

[+RDrayerIII]

On 3/8/2019 at 6:51 PM, barefootjeff said:

 

The question of permissions is very much dependent on the locale. On public land where there are no explicit restrictions on cache placement, there might (and I stress might) be no need to seek formal permission and, particularly in the case of government bureaucracies, it might be better not to as there's a tendency for front desk staff to just say no to anything not covered in their training manual, i.e. let sleeping dogs lie. If in doubt, ask your reviewer or your local geocaching association as they will be well-versed on permission requirements in your area.

In the locations I have in mind it is probably not problematic because these are mostly micros that may be grabbed and trashed at the worst. However, circumventing formal permission could become problematic if we are talking about something like ammo cans.

[+igator210]

On 3/8/2019 at 7:23 PM, Lynx Humble said:

Reviewers seems to ask different questions depending on your area because I never got asked a proof of permission about the caches I placed.

 

 

Reviewers have a vast collection of tools at their disposal to know what areas are or are not cache friendly and which areas need permission.

[Keystone]

I was waiting to see if the OP returned to respond to any of the feedback provided, and also to see the disposition of their pending cache submission, which was a guardrail cache along a road passing through a county park that has a fairly strict geocaching permit policy.  To tie a bow around this discussion:

1. The OP chose to self-archive the guardrail cache instead of reaching out to the county parks contact person for permission.
2. Earlier, the OP voluntarily archived one of their pending cache submissions because it was hidden too close to another of their pending cache submissions.  As a result, the second cache could then be published.
3. The OP's very first cache submission was in an Ohio Wildlife Area.  Per the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' geocaching policy, no caches are allowed in Wildlife Areas.  This has been the case since I began reviewing geocaches in Ohio back in 2003.
4. Both of the above-mentioned geocaching permission policies are detailed in the Regional Geocaching Policies wiki section for Ohio, which Touchstone helpfully linked to in the third reply to this thread.
5. All of the OP's other 20 cache submissions were published, nearly all upon the initial review with no back and forth dialogue being required.

[+bflentje]

18 hours ago, Keystone said:

I was waiting to see if the OP returned to respond to any of the feedback provided, and also to see the disposition of their pending cache submission, which was a guardrail cache along a road passing through a county park that has a fairly strict geocaching permit policy.  To tie a bow around this discussion:

1. The OP chose to self-archive the guardrail cache instead of reaching out to the county parks contact person for permission.
2. Earlier, the OP voluntarily archived one of their pending cache submissions because it was hidden too close to another of their pending cache submissions.  As a result, the second cache could then be published.
3. The OP's very first cache submission was in an Ohio Wildlife Area.  Per the Ohio Department of Natural Resources' geocaching policy, no caches are allowed in Wildlife Areas.  This has been the case since I began reviewing geocaches in Ohio back in 2003.
4. Both of the above-mentioned geocaching permission policies are detailed in the Regional Geocaching Policies wiki section for Ohio, which Touchstone helpfully linked to in the third reply to this thread.
5. All of the OP's other 20 cache submissions were published, nearly all upon the initial review with no back and forth dialogue being required.

 

A bow tied or piling on publicly? 

[Keystone]

3 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

A bow tied or piling on publicly? 

I'll draw you a map.

 

1. OP, who is located in Ohio, complains that the Ohio reviewers are giving him a hard time and "rejecting" his caches when similar caches get published for other Cache Owners.
2. I am a member of the Ohio reviewer team, although I've never reviewed any of the OP's caches.
3. Therefore, I have a vested interest in explaining what's actually going on, in order to demonstrate that the OP is, in fact, not being "rejected" or treated unfairly.
4. I made two posts to this thread in order to demonstrate this.  After the first post, I paused in order to give the OP an opportunity to respond.  When they didn't, I posted again, in order to say what I wanted to say.
5. No other reviewer account has posted to the thread to supply the "other side of the story."

I hope that this additional explanation is helpful.

[+hzoi]

12 hours ago, Keystone said:

15 hours ago, bflentje said:

A bow tied or piling on publicly? 

I'll draw you a map.

 

1. OP, who is located in Ohio, complains that the Ohio reviewers are giving him a hard time and "rejecting" his caches when similar caches get published for other Cache Owners.
2. I am a member of the Ohio reviewer team, although I've never reviewed any of the OP's caches.
3. Therefore, I have a vested interest in explaining what's actually going on, in order to demonstrate that the OP is, in fact, not being "rejected" or treated unfairly.
4. I made two posts to this thread in order to demonstrate this.  After the first post, I paused in order to give the OP an opportunity to respond.  When they didn't, I posted again, in order to say what I wanted to say.
5. No other reviewer account has posted to the thread to supply the "other side of the story."

I hope that this additional explanation is helpful.

 

HEY.  We're trying to bash reviewers here.  Keep your facts out of this.

[+arisoft]

9 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

HEY.  We're trying to bash reviewers here.  Keep your facts out of this.

 

My reply has disappeared from this thread. How do I appeal?

[+Touchstone]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

My reply has disappeared from this thread. How do I appeal?

You just did, and it appears that your request was denied

[+NanCycle]

9 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

My reply has disappeared from this thread. How do I appeal?

 

Maybe rephrase and repost.

[+bflentje]

On 3/21/2019 at 4:45 AM, hzoi said:

 

HEY.  We're trying to bash reviewers here.  Keep your facts out of this.

 

I would never bash reviewers or moderators. But public thrashings are totally lame no matter who does it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

11 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

I would never bash reviewers or moderators. But public thrashings are totally lame no matter who does it.

 

What's the difference between bashing and thrashing?

[+hal-an-tow]

I think the distinction would be that thrashing involves a stick or cane ...

[+billfern]

The interesting challenge here is to determine why bans and permission needs have resulted from this hobby.  Perhaps the whole issue has come from the need to hide and find something. And we are supposed to hide something in a container that has physical dimensions and could be trash. What if we didn’t have to hide anything?  What if we just identified something you had to take a picture of and show the metadata and post that.  Perhaps it’s time to change geocaching!  I too am finding the whole process a bind.

it seems anyone in the public can take something into a park or onto most property as long as they carry it out or trash it properly. But call it a geocache and suddenly heads rear up. I think it’s time to scrap the container and log idea and do something else. 

[+K13]

39 minutes ago, billfern said:

The interesting challenge here is to determine why bans and permission needs have resulted from this hobby.  Perhaps the whole issue has come from the need to hide and find something. And we are supposed to hide something in a container that has physical dimensions and could be trash. What if we didn’t have to hide anything?  What if we just identified something you had to take a picture of and show the metadata and post that.  Perhaps it’s time to change geocaching!  I too am finding the whole process a bind.

it seems anyone in the public can take something into a park or onto most property as long as they carry it out or trash it properly. But call it a geocache and suddenly heads rear up. I think it’s time to scrap the container and log idea and do something else. 

Perhaps you should look in to Waymarking.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, billfern said:

What if we just identified something you had to take a picture of and show the metadata and post that

 

The game is going to this direction. Most new caches seems to be visible at plain sight just for signing the logbook. New Adventure lab caches works exactly the way you like. Just visit the site and earn a point. You don't have to take a picture or write anything about the cache, only visit physically or virtually the site.

[+The A-Team]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2019 at 9:41 PM, billfern said:

What if we just identified something you had to take a picture of and show the metadata and post that.  Perhaps it’s time to change geocaching!

Well, that would certainly change geocaching.

 

However, I'm not so sure that removing the geocaching aspects from geocaching would give a good result.

 

If you don't like hiding or finding containers, there's always Waymarking or that (dying?) competing game where you take pictures of things stuck onto public and private property.

[+billfern]

Not that I don’t enjoy the find, and I have hidden over 100, I tend to look at what is going on in the world.  We hear now about cleaning plastic up in the oceans, recycling, and all that, yet we as Cachers keep on going hiding those various things others are seeking to get rid of.  So do we need a better container that well decompose and contribute to the environment, or do we revert to something else, or do we find a happy marriage by looking at what fits where?

[+billfern]

And Oh, I did look at Waymarking, and who knows, we may be left with that.  But no, I like the hide and find a container thing.  

[+CAVinoGal]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:41 PM, billfern said:

I think it’s time to scrap the container and log idea and do something else. 

OR

1 hour ago, billfern said:

I like the hide and find a container thing.  

 

I think the "hide and find a container thing" is going to stick around, and there are other ways to "do something else" if you choose.  It's up to you how you go forward in this hobby.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, billfern said:

So do we need a better container that well decompose and contribute to the environment, or do we revert to something else, or do we find a happy marriage by looking at what fits where?

I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to find a "better container" that will protect its contents from the elements over the lifetime of the geocache, while simultaneously decomposing and contributing to the environment. To me, those sound like mutually exclusive goals.

 

But let us know if you come up with anything.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, billfern said:

So do we need a better container that well decompose and contribute to the environment, or do we revert to something else, or do we find a happy marriage by looking at what fits where?

In dryer environments a steel container would maybe satisfy both of them, as it would eventually rust away. But in a dry climate this would take years, so years of use as a container, before it eventually rusts away. I came upon lots of steel containers being used in the Northern Territory. This was though likely because of bushfires.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

18 minutes ago, niraD said:

I think it's unlikely that you'll be able to find a "better container" that will protect its contents from the elements over the lifetime of the geocache, while simultaneously decomposing and contributing to the environment. To me, those sound like mutually exclusive goals.

 

But let us know if you come up with anything.

 

I've used steel containers for some of my hides, as well as a wooden one. They're all placed in dry locations under rock ledges so ought to last many years, and my intention is certainly to remove them and dispose of them properly when they reach the point of archival, but failing that, when they eventually decompose, the steel will become iron oxide which is what it was before it was made into steel, and the wood will rot away or be gobbled up by termites.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

I should also add that the hard plastics typically used for cache containers are generally recyclable, so as long as COs are responsible and remove their containers from the environment when they reach end of life, they can be disposed of in that way.